You can also implement ?. in terms of ?
dealdot=: 3 : '? y [ 9!:1 ] 16807'
mean=:+/%#
mean"1(?."0,:?)100#1e3
194 544.81
mean"1(?.,:?)100#1e3
546.13 543.03
mean"1(dealdot,:?)100#1e3
541.14 517.69
mean"1(dealdot"0,:?)100#1e3
622 544.41
#@~."1 (dealdot"0 , dealdot , ?. , ?."0 ,: ?.)2^i.20
20 17 18 7 18
dealdot"0 ] 2^i.20
0 1 2 4 9 19 39 79 159 318 637 1274 2549 5099 10198 20397 40794 81588
163177 326354
?."0 ] 2^i.20
0 0 2 2 2 2 34 34 34 290 802 1826 1826 1826 10018 10018 10018 10018
10018 10018
On 2020-07-19 11:39, bill lam wrote:
I can see ?. is biased and buggy, but many codes depend on this 'bug'.
It
is ok to implement a better ?. but only as another new primitive if
there
are enough user demand.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:22 AM Skip Cave <[email protected]>
wrote:
It's clear that the statistical properties of ?. are repeatable, but
they
are are
significantly different than ?
mean"1(?."0,:?)2^i.50
3.98766e12 1.46478e13
mean"1(?."0,:?)2^i.50
3.98766e12 1.29535e13
mean"1(?."0,:?)2^i.50
3.98766e12 1.67325e13
mean"1(?."0,:?)2^i.50
3.98766e12 1.50923e13
mean"1(?."0,:?)100#1e3
194 494.96
mean"1(?."0,:?)100#1e3
194 538.78
mean"1(?."0,:?)100#1e3
194 527.15
mean"1(?."0,:?)100#1e3
194 513.06
The issue is whether that is a problem that needs to be fixed or not:
Skip Cave
Cave Consulting LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
